CONCRETE INSTITUTE of AUSTRALIA

The Performance of Concrete Symposium

Physical & Chemical

Performance of ConcretePart 1 Performance Specifications

Dr Vute SirivivatnanonProfessor of Concrete Engineering

KEY MESSAGES

1. Performance is derived through good specifications

2. Concrete production control depends on whether

prescriptive or performance-based specifications

3. Use systematic engineering approach to evaluate

new construction materials

OUTLINE

Are there DURABILITY issues?

1. Lessons from past

Inappropriate use or lack of use of SCM

Lack of effective quality control

2. AS 3600 50 year design life & AS 1379

No guidance in SCM

No post-pour control of cover Quantity

3. Optimising concrete performance

4. Specifying durability for infrastructures

5. Current materials research

Impact of MATERIAL specifications

1. Roles of binders on the resistance to

chloride, sulfate & carbonation

2. Roles of limestone addition

3. Aggregates

This presentation will cover:

ARE THERE DURABILITY ISSUES?

1. LESSONS FROM THE PAST1.1 INAPPROPRIATE USE OF SCM

LESSONS FROM THE PAST1.2 LACK OF EFFECTIVE QC

LESSONS FROM THE PAST1.3 GOOD CONCRETE COVER

Illuka wharf

Port Kemble swimming pool

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT LEADING TO BS 8110 & AS 3600

Code of Practice

Standards

Performance Specifications Control

Australia:

AS 1481 & 1482

UK: CP110-1972

Structural requirement: Compressive strength grade

Durability requirement: Min cement content, Max w/c

Strength

None

Australia:

AS 3600-1988

UK: BS8110-1985

Structural requirement: Compressive strength grade 1

Durability requirement: Max w/b ~ Strength … Strength 2

Wide spread acceptance of blended cements

The higher of the two

strengths

RTA B80-1990s

UK Highway

Combined prescriptive & performance-based specs

UK Highway structural concrete series_1700

Strength, Sorptivity

*Post-pour Cover*

2. AS3600 CONCRETE STRUCTURES50 YEARS DESIGN LIFE

The 2009 Revision

Minimum standard for

Type GP cement, and

based on 2005 data

50 year design life

Durability covers carbonation- &

chloride-induced corrosion,

sulfate & acid sulfate attack, and

abrasion & skid.

Referencing HB79 for AAR.

2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL LOADSTABLE 4.3 EXPOSURE CLASSIFICATION

Surface and exposure environment

Exposure classification R.C.

or prestressed

1. Surface of members in contact with ground(d) Members in aggressive soils(i) sulfate bearing (magnesium content < 1 g/L) See Table 4.8.1

3. Surfaces of members in above-ground exterior environments in areas that are:

(b) Near-coastal (1-50 km from coastline)(c) Coastal

B1B2

5. Surfaces of maritime structures in sea water(a) permanently submerged(b) in spray zone(c) in tidal/splash zone

B2C1C2

2.2 SPECIFYING SR CONCRETE

SO4Exposure

classification

Characteristic

strength (MPa)

Minimum

cover

( mm)In groundwater (mg/L) In soil (%)

< 1000 < 0.5 A2 25 50

1000 – 3000 0.5-1 B1 32 501

3000 – 10,000 1-2 B2 40 501,2

>10,000 >2 C1 and C2 ≥50 651,2,3

Notes:

1 It is recommended that cement be Type SR.

2 Additional protective coating is recommended.

3 The cover may be reduced to 50 mm if protective coating or barriers are used.

Table 3 Strength and cover requirements for sulfate soils with a

magnesium content of less than 1000 ppm

(See Sulfate-resisting Concrete. CCAA Technical Note TN68, May 2011, 8 p.)

2.3 PROTECT REINFORCING STEELTABLE 4.10.3.2 REQUIRED COVER

Exposure class

Required cover, mm

Characteristic strength, (f’c)

20 MPa 25 MPa 32 MPa 40 MPa ≥50 MPa

A1 20 20 20 20 20

A2 (50) 30 25 20 20

B1 (60) 40 30 25

B2 (65) 45 35

C1 (70) 50

C2 65

(qualit

y, Q

uantity

) A

S 3

600

2.3 CRACK CONTROL MEASURES

Limiting stress in tensile steel

AS 5100 (Bridge design) limits the permissible stress to 150 MPa (Grade 500 MPa)

AS 4997 (Maritime structures)

maximum stress 185-150 MPa depending on bar sizes.

Controlling crack width

AS 3600 (40-60 years)

Limits on bars spacing

AS 5100 (100 years)

Minimum steel of 500 mm2/m

Similar approach to European Standard

AS

510

0.5

Bridge D

esig

n:

Concre

te

AS

51

00

.5 B

rid

ge

de

sig

n: C

on

cre

te

AS

51

00

.5 B

rid

ge

de

sig

n: C

on

cre

te

2.4 ABRASION RESISTANCE

2.5 LACK OF NATIONAL APPROACH TO PREVENT ASR

Australian Standards

AS 1141.60.1 Accelerated Mortar Bar Test, AMBT

AS 1141.60.2 Concrete Prism Test, CPT

Handbook HB79: Guidelines on Minimising the Risk of Damage to Concrete Structures in Australia

First edition – 1996

Second edition – 2015

2.6 QUALITY CONTROL (QC) OF COVER QUALITYAS1379 SPECIFICATION AND SUPPLY OF CONCRETE

6.5 PROJECT ASSESSMENT OF STRENGTH GRADE

6.5.2 Project assessment for plants subject to production assessment

(b) At least one sample from each 50 m³

(d) Concrete deemed not to comply if the moving average strength of 3 consecutive

samples is less than f’c

(e) If less than 3 samples, concrete deemed not to comply if strength is less than

0.85f’c

* Sirivivatnanon, V., Kuptitanhi, B., and Lim, C.C., ‘Compliance Acceptance of Concrete’, First Asia/Pacific

Conference on Harmonization of Durability Standards And Performance Tests for Components in Buildings and

Infrastructure, Bangkok, Thailand, 8-10 September, 1999.

2.6 QUALITY CONTROL (QC) OF COVER QUALITYAS1379 SPECIFICATION AND SUPPLY OF CONCRETE

6.5 ASSESSMENT BY ALTERNATIVE METHODS WITH AN ACCEPTED OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC*

Acceptable if can be demonstrated that the methods provide a reliable statistical operating characteristic so that -

(a)Concrete with a proportion defective of 0.05 has a probability of acceptance of at least 50%; and

(b)Concrete with a proportion defective of 0.30 has a probability of rejection of at least 98%;

* Sirivivatnanon, V., Kuptitanhi, B., and Lim, C.C., ‘Compliance Acceptance of Concrete’, First Asia/Pacific

Conference on Harmonization of Durability Standards And Performance Tests for Components in Buildings and

Infrastructure, Bangkok, Thailand, 8-10 September, 1999.

2.7 QUALITY CONTROL (QC) OF COVER QUANTITY

AS3600 & AS5100.5

tolerances for cover

Pre-pour control by

inspection of gaps

between steel and

formwork

2.8 RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF COVER QUANTITY & QUALITY

2

12

12

s

x

a C

Cerf

D

xt

• Time to corrosion initiation, t, is highly dependent on the depth of cover – a function of the square of cover x

• Field observation and studies* confirmed that lack of adequate cover to be the overwhelming cause of premature corrosion

2

12

12

s

x

a C

Cerf

D

xt

* Sirivivatnanon, V. and Cao, H.T., "The need for and a method to control concrete cover", Proceedings of the

Second International RILEM/CEB Symposium on Quality Control of Concrete Structures, Belgium, June 1991.

2.9 QUALITY CONTROL (QC) OF CONCRETE QUANTITY

The need for and a method to control concrete cover (1991)*

Post-pour inspection and quantification of cover

Balancing the risks of cover assessment

UK Highway & RMS

Practical control of concrete cover eg. RMS B80 clause 8.4 specifies measurement of cover by a covermeter. UK Highway structural concrete series_1700

* Sirivivatnanon, V. and Cao, H.T., "The need for and a method to control concrete cover", Proceedings of the

Second International RILEM/CEB Symposium on Quality Control of Concrete Structures, Belgium, June 1991.

CONCLUSIONS ON AS3600 & AS5100.5

1. Good foundation for design life specifications

2. AS 3600 was based on research but silent on SCM

AS 5100.5 make explicit use of SCM research

3. AS 3600: Good control of cover quality

AS 5100.5: Difficult to QC prescriptive requirements

4. Lack of control of cover Quantity

3. A GOOD EXAMPLE OF OPTIMISING CONCRETE PERFORMANCE

SORRELL CAUSEWAY BRIDGE100 year design life

Underside of pile cap shell

Erection of precast channel section

Gibbens, Smith and Joynson, ‘ Sorell Causeway

Channel Bridge, Tasmania’ CIA Seminar.

4. SPECIFYING DURABILITY FOR INFRASTRUCTURES (BRIDGES)

Various state road authorities have used both prescriptive & performance-based specifications

For marine exposure, various test methods used have been studied in term of

correlation to long-term (1-year) diffusion coefficient,

Proficiency of test methodLack of background on 100 year design life

Sirivivatnanon, V. and Khatri, R. 2011, ‘Testing & Specifying Chloride Resistance of

Concrete’, Procs 2011 Austroads Bridge Conf., Vol. IV, Sydney, Australia, pp. 472-487.

De.28 Sorptivity28 VPV28 RCPT28

(10-12 m2/s) (mm/s½) (%) (Coulomb)

Precision from relevant standards or other sources

Sources of Precision ASTM C1566 ASTM C1585 ASTM C642 ASTM C1202

Reportable to 0.001 0.1x10-4 0.1 NA

Repeatability CV 14% 6% 1.8%(2) 12.3%

Reproducibility 20% NA(1) 6.5%(2) 18%

Correlation to De.365 of a GP & 3 GB cement concretes (CSIRO, 1998)

Range of value

Correlation coef, R

10–60

74%

15–100mm

76%

6–13, 13–18

12%. 86%(3)

1000–5000

76%

Critical range: one order change in

De.365 from 1 to10 m2/s

28 41 mm 1.5 1270

Increment used in classifications RTA B80 12 mm VicRoads 1–2% C1202 10004.1

CO

MP

AR

AT

IVE

PE

RF

OR

MA

NC

E

4.2 SUMMARY

The principal chloride transport mechanisms are diffusion and capillary absorption

The use of prescriptive specifications of cement type & w/c has been effective in specifying chloride resistance. QC may post a challenge.

Diffusion coefficient, capillary absorption (sorptivity & VPV) and migration properties (RCPT) are all good indicators of long-term chloride resistance.

The effective range of these properties are:

–Sorptivity: 15-100mm

–VPV: 13-17%

–RCPT: 1000-5000 coulombs

5. CURRENT RESEARCH

Limit-state service life design (CSIRO/CCAA)

Sustainability & utilisation of scarce resources

GP cement with higher mineral addition (CCAA)

Use of manufactured sand (CCAA)

Use of reactive aggregates in HPC (UTS/CCAA)Prevention of DEF in precast concrete (UTS/Humes)

Making full use of all available fly ashes (RMS/UTS)

Durability & applications of geopolymer concrete (UTS, UNSW)

LIMIT-STATE SERVICE-LIFE DESIGN

Sirivivatnanon, V., Gurguis, S. and Castel, A., ‘Development of Limit State

Service Life Design’, Proc Concrete 2007, Adelaide, Australia, 17-20 Oct 2007

SUSTAINABILITY & UTILISATION OF SCARCE RESOURCES

GP cement with higher mineral addition (CCAA)

Use of manufactured sand (CCAA)

Use of reactive aggregates in HPC (UTS/CCAA)

Hierarchy of test methods

Use of reaction kinetics to

measure level of reactivity

Influence of chemical composition

of SCM in mitigating ASR

PREVENTION OF DEF IN PRECAST CONCRETE (UTS/HUMES RESEARCH)

MAKING FULL USE OF ALL AVAILABLE FLY ASHES (UTS/RMS)

CONCLUSIONS

1. Australian specifications enable good concrete

performance if used appropriately

2. Concrete production control requires emphasis on

both quality and Quantity of covercrete

3. Need to use systematic engineering approach to

evaluate new construction materials

OUTLINE

Are there DURABILITY issues?

1. Lessons from past

Inappropriate use or lack of use of SCM

Lack of effective quality control

2. AS 3600 50 year design life & AS 1379

No guidance in SCM

No post-pour control of cover Quantity

Lack of National approach to prevent ASR

3. Specifying durability for infrastructures

4. Current materials research

Impact of MATERIAL specifications

1. Roles of binders on the resistance

to chloride, sulfate & carbonation

2. Roles of limestone addition

3. Aggregates

This presentation will cover:

1. SUPPLEMENTARY CEMENTITIOUS MATERIALS

Important aspects of SCM

1. Pozzolanic or semi-hydraulic material contributing to improved binder performance

2. Consistency in the quality and availability of supply, and hence the popularity of industrial by-products

3. Contribution to sustainability

Much of earlier research in the 1990’s focused on their effect on strength and specific durability mostly in qualitative term.More recent research attempts to examine durability in more quantitative term focusing on performance measurement.

1.1 QUALITATIVE PERFORMANCE: FLY ASH

0 5 10 15 20 250

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

Depth (mm)

Chloride Concentration (%)

MH40

MF40

PC40

7 Days 28 Days0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

Charge Transfer Values (Coulombs)

PC40 MH40 MF40

0 50 100 150 200 2500

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

Exposure to Sulphate environment (days)

Expansion (microstrain)

OPC Mascrete Mascrete+FA

1.2 QUALITATIVE PERFORMANCE: FA

0 20 40 60 80 10020

30

40

50

60

70

Age (days)

Com

pres

sive

Str

engt

h (M

Pa)

MH40 PC40 MF40

MF40

MH40 PC40

0 50 100 150 200200

300

400

500

600

700

Age (days)

Drying Shrinkage (microstrain)

MH40

PC40

MF40

MH40

MF40

PC40

Khatri, R. Sirivivatnanon, V., Kidav, E.U. and Soo, T.P., ‘Durable Concretes for Marine and Aggressive Sulphate

Environments’, Proceedings of the 3rd Asia Pacific Conference on Structural Engineering & Construction (APSEC ‘96),

Johor, Malaysia, June 1996, pp. 231-244.

1.3 QUALITATIVEPERFORMANCE: HVFA

Development of high volume fly

ash (HVFA) concrete and first

applications in

• Concrete pavement at

Mount Piper power station

• Foundation of Crown

Casino in Melbourne.

Sirivivatnanon, V., Cao, H.T., Khatri, R. and Bucea, L., ‘Guidelines for the Use of

High Volume Fly Ash Concretes, CSIRO Technical Report TR95/2, August 1995.

1.4 QUALITATIVE PERFORMANCE: SLAG

High slag cement concrete was first used in the construction of Sydney Harbour Tunnel (SHT) followed by Bream B & West Tuna offshore oil platform and subsequently in Wandoo

1.5 SCM: SEMI-QUATITATIVE PERFORMANCEDEVELOPMENT OF SULFATE-RESISTING CONCRETE

3-year immersion in 5% Na2SO4 kept at pH 7

& pH 3.5

–Expansion of prisms

–Strengths retention

> Compression

> Flexural & cube compression

Characteristics of concrete subject to sulfate attack

leading to expansion and strength loss.

28-day Properties

–compressive strength,

–water to cement ratio,

–water permeability, &

–rapid sulfate permeability

Results used in specifying sulfate-resisting

concrete

Experimental ProgrammeProperties & Performance Tests

PERFORMANCEPROPERTIES

3-day water-cured &tested at 28-day

Water permeability (Darcy’s)

Rapid sulfate permeability (6-hour test)

Water-to-cement ratio

0

V

+60

V

Machined

Perspex

chamber

Test

Specim

en

Inlet

apertureThermocouple and

gas outlet aperture

8.8%

Na2SO4

0.3N NaOH

Metal

mesh

Pressurised Water

Concrete Specimen

Rubber

Gaskets

Epoxy Epoxy

Brass Ring

To Manometer One Way Inlet

Threaded

Rod

Nut

Perspex

Plate

Perspex

Plate

CONCRETE PRISMS AND CYLINDERS AFTER 3-YEAR

CONCRETE 28-DAY PROPERTIESCOMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, MPA

S1

S2

S2

S3

S3

Cement 5

S1

Cement 1

Cement 2

Cement 3

Cement 3

Cement 4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

water/cement

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ngth

, MPa

S1S2S3Cement 1Cement 2Cement 3Cement 4Cement 5

WATER AND RAPID-SULFATE PERMEABILITY

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

water/cement

Wat

er p

erm

eab

ilit

y, 1

0-1

2 m/s

S1S2S3C1C2C3C4C5Limit

2x10-12 m/s

S1S3

S2

S1

S1

S2

S2

S3

S3

Cement 1 Cement 2

Cement 3

Cement 4

Cement 5

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

water/cement

Rap

id s

ulf

ate

per

mea

bili

ty, c

ou

lom

b

S1S2S3LimitCement 1Cement 2Cement 3Cement 4Cement 5

2000 coulomb S1

S2

S3

3-YEAR DIMENSIONAL & STRENGTH STABILITYEXPANSION OF PRISMS IN 5% NA2SO4 @ PH7

USBR failure criterion 5000

pH 7, W/C=0.5

10

100

1000

10000

- 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200

Days Immersed

Exp

ansi

on (M

icro

stra

ins)

C1

C2

C3

C4

C5

S1B

S2B

S3B

LimitLimit on expansion rate

EXPANSION OF PRISMS IN 5% NA2SO4 @ PH3.5

USBR failure criterion 5000

pH 3.5, W/C=0.5

S3B

10

100

1000

10000

- 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200

Days Immersed

Exp

ansi

on

(M

icro

stra

ins)

C1

C2

C3

C4

C5

S1B

S2B

S3B

LimitLimit on expansion rate

RATINGS OF EXPANSION & STRENGTH RETENTION

Long-term

criteria

Type SR cements Non SR cements

C1-C5 S1 S2 S3

0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.65 0.4 0.5 0.65 0.4 0.5 0.65

pH 7

Expansion √ √ √ √ ? √ ? X √ X X

Strength √ √ √ √ √ ? X X ? X X

pH 3.5

Expansion √ √ √ √ ? √ ? X √ X X

Strength √ √ √ √ √ X X X ? X X

Conclusion 1: Type SR cement is essential in sulfate-resisting concrete

WATER AND RAPID-SULFATE PERMEABILITY

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

water/cement

Wat

er p

erm

eab

ilit

y, 1

0-1

2 m

/s

S1S2S3C1C2C3C4C5Limit

2x10-12 m/s

S1S3

S2

S1

S1

S2

S2

S3

S3

Cement 1 Cement 2

Cement 3

Cement 4

Cement 5

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

water/cement

Ra

pid

su

lfa

te p

erm

ea

bil

ity

, c

ou

lom

b

S1S2S3LimitCement 1Cement 2Cement 3Cement 4Cement 5

2000 coulomb S1

S2

S3

Conclusion 2: Sulfate-resisting concrete can be specified by permeability

AUSTRALIAN STANDARD: CONCRETE STRUCTUREAS 3600-2009: 50 YEARS DESIGN LIFE

Exposure conditions Exposure classification

Sulfates (expressed as SO4)

pH

Soil conditions

A (high permeability)

Soil conditions

B (Low permeability)In soil

ppm

In groundwater ppm

<5 000 <1 000 >5.5 A2 (25/30) A1 (20/20)

5 000-10 000 1 000-3 000 4.5-5.5 B1 (32/40) A1 (20/20)

10 000-20 000 3 000-10 000 4-4.5 B2 (40/45) B1 (32/40)

>20 000 >10 000 <4 C2 (50/65) B2 (40/45)

CCAA Australia 50 000 3.5, 7 3 years in solution with failure criteria from PCA

& CSIRO study

PCA - USA 65 000 Not reported 12 years immersion in solution or semi burial

field condition

USBR - USA 21 000 Not reported 40 years partial immersion

RMS BTD 2008/12: CONCRETE STRUCTURESRMS QA SPECIFICATION B80

Exposure conditions Exposure classification

Sulfates (expressed as SO4)

pH

Soil conditions

high permeability

> 10-5 m/s

Soil conditions

Low permeability

< 10-5 m/sIn soil

ppm

In groundwater

ppm

- < 400 4.5-5.5 C (420/0.40) B1 (320/0.50)

- 400-1 500 4.5-5.5 C (420/0.40) B1 (320/0.50)

- 1 500-3 000 4.5-5.5 C (420/0.40) B1 (320/0.50)

- 3 000-6 000 3.5-4.5 U1=C (420/0.40) 25%FA

50%BFS

B2 (370/0.46)

- >6 000 3.5-4.5 U1=C (420/0.40) 65%BFS C (420/0.40)

CCAA Australia 50 000 3.5, 7 3 years in solution with failure criteria from PCA & CSIRO study

USBR - USA 21 000 Not reported 40 years partial immersion

CONCLUSIONS ON SULFATE-RESISTING CONCRETE

1. Type SR cement or blended cements are essential in producing highly sulfate-resisting concrete.

2. Sulfate-resisting concrete are characterised by

Long-term volume stability (ettringite), and

Long-term strength retention (gypsum & decalcification)

3. Acidic sulfate condition is slightly more aggressive than the neutral sulfate condition.

4. The research outcomes supported AS3600-2009 specification for concrete in the most aggressive category of sulfate and acid sulfate soil conditions, as well as RMS specifications.

Cement Concrete & Aggregates Australia. Sulfate-resisting Concrete. CCAA Technical Note TN68, May 2011, 8 p.

1.6 SCM: QUATITATIVE PERFORMANCE

LONG-TERM EXPOSURE OF CONCRETE IN TIDAL CONDITIONS

2.6 SCM: QUATITATIVE PERFORMANCE

RESISTANCE OF CONCRETE TO CHLORIDE PENETRATION

NON-STEADY STATE

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

0 10 20 30 40 50Cover depth, mm

Chl

orid

e, %

'Measured LS4'

Calculated LS4

"Measured G4"

Calculated G4

Cs =0.7%

A diffusion

Cs =1.0% for LS4

a capillary absorption-diffusion

CCAA RESEARCH DATACONCRETE 9-YEAR TIDAL EXPOSURE

Binder w/b F28(MPa)

Cs D 1year

(10-12 m2/s)

Alpha Critical

Chloride

GP 0.6 38.0 0.8 7.93 0.60 0.15

GP 0.4 63.0 2.8 1.15 0.55 0.12

50% Slag 0.6 33.5 1.6 2.87 0.75 0.05

50% Slag 0.4 45.5 0.5 1.24 0.60 0.03

30% Fly Ash 0.6 25.5 1.5 2.80 0.85 0.10

30% Fly Ash 0.4 62.5 1.4 0.90 0.55 0.05

Reading: Sirivivatnanon, V., Meck, E. and Gurguis, S., ‘Corrosion Propagation of Reinforced Concrete in Marine

Environment’, Proceedings Concrete 2005, Melbourne, Australia, 16-19 October 2005, 16 pages.

LONG-TERM EXPOSURE OF CONCRETE IN TIDAL CONDITIONS

Cement Concrete & Aggregates Australia. Chloride Resistance of Concrete. CCAA Research Report, June 2009, 37 p.

CARBONATION & DURABILITY

REQUIREMENTS OF AS3600

Salts & CO2 in waterCarb

on

ati

on

in

4%

CO

2(m

m/y

0.5

)

28-day compressive strength (MPa)

100

20 30 40 50 60

80

60

20

40

10

WATER SORPTIVITY & DURABILITY REQUIREMENTS OF AS3600

5

15

30 5040

10

60

10

10 20

Wa

ter

So

rpti

vit

y(m

m/h

0.5

)

28-day compressive strength (MPa)

2. ROLES OF LIMESTONE ADDITION

Examine the possible increase in limestone mineral addition (LS) in the type of cement commonly used in all general applications from the sustainability viewpoint

USA allows up to 5% LS in ASTM Type I cement, and 15% in PLC

European: 5%LS in Type ??

France has used up to 45%LS in PLC for specific applications

Canada: 15% LS in portland limestone cement used in most construction work

New Zealand: 12%LS in GP cement

Australia: 7.5% in General Purpose (Type GP) cement

further increase must be based on the full implication

on sustainability

Essence of

construction

materials

Environmental

Impact

Social

Impact

Optimum

Cost

Construction √ √ √

Strength √ √ √

Durability √ √ √

2.1 INCREASED LIMESTONE & SUSTAINABILITY

Essence of

construction

materialsEnvironmental

Impact

Social

Impact

Optimum

Cost

Construction Reduction in clinker

content & hence CO2

with no negative impact

on strength & durability

Neutral

(Limestone

from same

source)

Cost neutral or

possible saving due to

reduced energy cost

per tonne of cement

Strength

Durability

Sustainability reference points

2.2 IMPACT ON STRENGTH & VOLUME STABILITY

Earlier research on lab-blended cement with ground limestone by Dhir et al. (2007) suggested possible replacement of up to 15%

410 kg/m3

310 kg/m3

235 kg/m3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 10 20 30 40 50

% limestone

Co

mp

ress

ive

Str

eng

th,

MP

a

410 kg/m3

355 kg/m3

310 kg/m3

285 kg/m3

235 kg/m3

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0 15 25 35 45

% limestone

Cre

ep

& d

ryin

g s

hri

nkag

e,

µ

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

Co

mp

ressiv

e S

tren

gth

, M

Pa

Creep

Drying Shrinkage

28-day strength

Effect of % limestone on the compressive strength of concrete

at various cement contents (Dhir et al., 2007)

Effect of % limestone on the compressive strength, creep and

drying shrinkage of a concrete with w/c of 0.6 and 310 kg/m3

(Dhir et al., 2007)

2.2 IMPACT ON DURABILITY

Tsivillis et al. (1999) found PLC concrete

with 20% limestone to have higher

porosity (P) and gas permeability

coefficient (Kg) but lower water

permeability (Kw) than PC concrete.

Matthew (1994) found the depth of

carbonation to increase with water to

cement ratio and limestone content (0-

25%), and that the depth of carbonation

was reliably correlated with the 28-day

strength of concrete.

Cement Properties Concrete Properties

Lime-

stone

%

Blaine

m2/kg

Strength at

28 day

MPa

w/c Strength at

28 day

MPa

Kg

10-17 m/s

Kw

10-12 m/s

S

mm/min0.5P %

0 260 51.1 0.70 31.9 2.26 2.39 0.237 12.5

10 340 47.9 0.70 27.4 2.65 2.30 0.238 12.3

15 366 48.5 0.70 27.3 2.80 2.22 0.226 12.3

20 470 48.1 0.70 28.0 2.95 2.00 0.220 13.1

20 325 39.8 0.62 28.2 3.03 1.81 0.228 12.9

25 380 40.0 0.62 26.5 2.82 2.07 0.229 13.6

35 530 32.9 0.62 26.6 2.10 2.23 0.224 14.6

Barker and Matthews (1994) confirmed the finding

that concretes of equal strength carbonate at similar

rates irrespective of the limestone content.

2.3 SPECIFICATIONS & COMPLIANCE In Australia, substantial research are on-

going as to optimum % of limestone permissible in the production of GP cement. Some of these research findings can be found on CCAA website.

Apart from satisfying all the essential requirements shown, it is vital that the followings apply:

1. Compatibility with SCM

2. Existing framework in relevant Australian Standards and leading Government specifications assure full compliance of the quality of concrete

Essence of

construction

materials

Environmental

Impact

Social

Impact

Optimum

Cost

Construction √ √ √

Strength √ √ √

Durability √ √ √

3. AGGREGATES

The relative importance of aggregates is evident from the fact that most concrete consist of a large volume of aggregates (70-80% by volume). Current challenges include:

1. Shortage of natural sand and source of sound rock, and the environmental impact of new quarries

2. Improved supply of manufactured sand- better management of fines & deleterious clay- re-examine prescriptive-based specifications- better crushing to improve shape & water demand

3. Greater use of marginal aggregates & appropriate risks management

sf

3.1 MANUFACTURED SAND IN AUSTRALIAN STANDARD

Cement Concrete & Aggregates Australia (CCAA) examines a range of physical, mechanical and chemical properties of manufactured sand and test methods. Recommendations such as grading and deleterious fines, which measure both the quantity and activity of the fines, were derived from the research.

Outcomes: No further distinctions were made between natural and manufactured sand in AS2758.1 and specification of a limit on “deleterious fines”, being a multiple of MBV and %passing 75microns, in all sands to control durability of concrete.

References:

Cement Concrete & Aggregates Australia, Research Report on Manufactured Sand – National test methods and

specification values. January 2007.

Standards Australia AS 2758.1:2014 Aggregates and rock for engineering purposes Part 1: Concrete aggregates.

3.2 MANUFACTURED SAND IN CONCRETE PAVEMENT

A joint CCAA/RTA (Roads & Traffic Authority – New South Wales) research, conducted both on laboratory concrete and on actual concrete pavement, found the influence of sand on skid resistance of concrete pavement to be dependent on its resistance to physical abrasion in a micro-Deval test, rather than its stability in acid (testing the amount of hard silica).

Outcomes: RTA adopts performance-based specification for fine aggregates used in road pavement. This enables good quality man sand to be used in concrete pavement.

References:

Sirivivatnanon, V., Khabbaz, H., and Ayton, G., “Performance-based Specification of sand for skid resistance of

concrete pavements”, ASCP 4th Concrete Pavement Conference, 2017.

3.3 ALKALI SILICA REACTIVITY (ASR)

National guideline such as HB79 and AASHTO PP65 provide guidance to minimise the risk to structural deterioration or damage due to alkali-carbonate and alkali-silica reactivity.

Both such guidelines provide a framework for engineer to select ASR avoidance strategies in accordance with the severity of the exposed environment, the importance & design life of the structure, and the mitigation of ASR by controlling the alkali from cement and the appropriate use of SCM.

References:

Standards Australia. Handbook 79 - Guidelines on minimising the risk of damage to concrete structures in Australia. 2014.

AASHTO PP65 – Standard Practice for Determining the Reactivity of Concrete Aggregates and Selecting Appropriate

Measures for Preventing Deleterious Expansion in New Concrete Construction.

MAN SAND TESTING

Micro-Deval - abrasion

Na2SO4 Soundness - stability

Absorption – stability

MBV x Passing 75-micron - durabilitySource Rocks

▼

Coarse

Aggregates

▼

Man Sands

Historical perspective

Natural Sand

Mineralogical

compositions

Silica Content

LAB CONCRETE TESTING

Skid before & after wear

Abrasion loss

(or Wehner-Schulze)

Lab-prepared

Concrete

Specimens

FIELD ASSESSMENTS

SCRIMS by Road Authority

Pendulum Friction

Field-retrieved

Concrete

specimens

Performance

Criteria

LAB-FIELD RESEARCH OUTLINE

4

CONDITION PRIOR TO POLISHINGMITTAGONG BYPASS TARCUTTA RANGE

26

PENDULUM FRICTION TEST (AS 1141.42)FRICTION VALUE FV

5

PAFV ABRASION RESISTANCE (AS 1141.41)33-35 REVS/MIN (8,000&16,000 CYCLES AFTER 4&8 HOURS)

6

2-hr with coarse abrasion

[Balck silicon carbide No. 320

@ 2g/min]

2-hr with fine abrasion

[Optical emery No. 600 @

2g/min]

DURABILITY TESTS

Micro-Deval: abrasion in water

Sodium Soundness: stability due

to expansive salt crystallization

Absorption: porosity

13

To Wagga Wagga

Truck Rest

Test site is on the S/B,

opposite the entrance to the

Truck Bay

2820

Tarcutta Range test site

COMPRESSIVE STRENGTHS OF CONCRETE40-58 MPA AT 28-DAY

17

Compressive Strength

40.2

43.4

36.3

41.8

36.6

36.4

38.3

35.6

31.5

38.3

36.4

36.5

35.0

32.6 34

.2

33.4 34

.9

30.7

43.4

43.8

50.8

53.7

46.5

54.2

46.4

46.7

49.1

44.1

40.6

50.1 50

.9

47.9

48.0

42.6

45.6

44.5

44.4

40.0 40

.9

53.7 54.3

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

55.0

60.0

Mix

1-E

mu

Mix

2-5

0% M

S1

Mix

3-8

0% M

S1

Mix

4-5

0% M

S2

Mix

5-8

0% M

S2

Mix

6-5

0% M

S3

Mix

7-8

0% M

S3

Mix

8-5

0% M

S4

Mix

9-8

0% M

S4

Mix

10-

50%

MS

5

Mix

11-

80%

MS

5

Mix

12-

50%

MS

6

Mix

13-

80%

MS

6

Mix

14-

50%

MS

7

Mix

15-

80%

MS

7

Mix

16-

50%

MS

8

Mix

17-

80%

MS

8

Mix

18-

50%

MS

9

Mix

19-

80%

MS

9

Mix

20-

NS

10

Mix

21-

NS

11

Co

mp

ress

ive

stre

ng

th (M

Pa)

Avg of 7d compressive strength

Avg of 28d compressive strength

CHARACTERISTICS OF SKID BEFORE & AFTER WEAR

18

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Polishing in hour

Ski

d va

lue

Mix 1 off-form

Mix 1 saw-cut

Mix 20 off-form

Mix 20 saw-cut

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Polishing in hour

Ski

d va

lue

Mix 4 off-form

Mix 4 saw-cut

Mix 5 off-form

Mix 5 saw-cut

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Polishing in hour

Ski

d va

lue

Mix 2 off-form

Mix 2 saw-cut

Mix 3 off-form

Mix 3 saw-cut

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Polishing in hour

Ski

d va

lue

Mix 6 off-form

Mix 6 saw-cut

Mix 7 off-form

Mix 7 saw-cut

CHARACTERISTIC SKID AFTER 16,000 CYCLES OF POLISHINGAND MICRO-DEVAL OR FREE SILICA CONTENT OF SANDS

30

R2 = 0.4875

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

40 50 60 70 80 90

% Free Silica (chemical)

Ski

d of

off-

form

sur

face

afte

r 8

hr p

olis

hing

R2 = 0.6931

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

0 5 10 15 20 25

MDV of indiv sand

Ski

d of

off-

form

sur

face

afte

r 8

hr p

olis

hing

70% Corr 83% Corr

FOWLER AND RACHED, ‘EVALUATION OF THE

POLISH RESISTANCE OF FINE AGGREGATES IN

PCC PAVEMENTS’,

( TO BE PUBLISHED IN TRR)

30

SUMMARYMIX DESIGN

Most man sands demand greater AEA & SP to give similar air & slump. Greater effect @80% than 50%.

SKID AFTER WEAR (Cycles of polishing)

Skid characteristics of concrete with 50% & 80% manufactured sands are similar.

Most man sands give characteristic skid of 50 & above (Tarcutta Range has skid of 50 for saw-cut surface & a satisfactory SCRIM value range of 68-74 for the wearing surface).

SKID AFTER WEAR (Cycles of polishing)

There appears to be no relationship between the skid resistance of concrete and the free silica content of sands used.

The intrinsic skid resistance of concrete (skid of off-form surface after 8 hours of polishing) decreases with increasing micro-Deval value of sands.

35

NECESSARY ELEMENTSFOR DELETERIOUS ASR

Alkali Silica

Moisture

Damaging

ASR

reactionCa

EVALUATION OF REACTION POTENTIAL BY TESTING

AS1141.60.1 Accelerated Mortar Bar TestASTM C1260, CSA A23.2-25A, RMS T363, VicRoads RC376.03

• 21-day test of mortar expansion – quick & practical

• sand or coarse aggregate (sand grading) – surface area

• exposed to 1N NaOH solution – external alkali

• at 80°C – high temperature

Performance CriteriaASTM C1260 AS 1141.60.1

Interpretation 14 days Classification 10 days 21 days

Innocuous < 0.10% Non-reactive - < 0.10%

Uncertain 0.10 to 0.20% Slowly reactive < 0.10% ≥0.10% and < 0.30%

Potential deleterious ≥ 0.2*% Reactive ≥ 0.10% or ≥ 0.30%

EVALUATION OF REACTION POTENTIAL BY TESTING

AS1141.60.2 Concrete Prism Test (CPT)ASTM C1293, CSA A23.2-27A, RMS T364, VicRoads RC376.04

1-year concrete expansion – time consuming but better representative

• sand or coarse aggregate (with non-reactive coarse or fine

aggregate) – normal mix proportion

• Artificially raised alkali to 1.25% Na2O equivalent – internal alkali

• at 38°C – moderate temperature

Performance criterion

1-year expansion ≥ 0.03% for reactive aggregate (limit is 0.04% in

ASTM & CSA)

CONSISTENCY OF AS1141.60.1 & 60.2 TO FIELD PERFORMANCE

234

5

6

7

8

910

1112

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

222324

25

2627

28

29

30

31

32

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

AS

21-d

ay e

xpansio

n,

%

ASTM 14-day expansion, %

Non Reactive

Slowly Reactive

Reactive

Inno

cuo

us

Un

certa

in

AMBT expansion at 14-day (ASTM) and 21-day (AS) in various

performance limits with solid circle signifying field reactive

aggregates (Stark, 1993 & Touma, 2000)

AMBT, CPT & Field plus large blocks data

from:

• Stark, Margan, Okamoto & Diamond

(1993)

• Berube & Fournier (1993)

• Touma (2000)

• Ideker, Bentivegna, Folliard & Juenger

(2012)

CONSISTENCY OF AS1141.60.1 & 60.2 TO FIELD PERFORMANCE

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

AS

TM

14

-day

expansio

n,

%

CPT 1-year expansion, %

ASTM

Innocuous

ASTM Potentially reactive

14-day AMBT expansion and 1-year CPT expansion in

various performance zones. Solid circles and squares

signify field reactive aggregates, solid squares are those

classified by AS1141.60.1 to be slowly reactive or

reactive (Touma, 2000, Berube, 1993, Ideker et al., 2012)

Sirivivatnanon et al. (2016)

Based on such limited field data

1. AS AMBT is 85% success in

screening reactive aggregates

2. AS CPT is 95% accurate in

screening reactive aggregates

Sirivivatnanon, V., Mohammadi, J. and South, W.,

"Reliability of New Australian Test Methods in

predicting Alkali Silica Reaction of Field Concrete",

Construction & Building Materials 126 (2016) 868-874

EFFECTIVENESS OF DIFFERENT SCM IN MITIGATING ASR

Pospischil, D, Sirivivatnanon, V., Sivathasan, U. and Cheney, K. ‘Effectiveness of Traditional and Alternative

Supplementary Cementitious Materials in Mitigating Alkali-Silica Reactivity’, Procs 27th Biennial National Conference of

the Concrete Institute of Australia in conjunction with the 69th RILEM Week, Melbourne, Sept 2015, pp 694-703.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0 10 20 30 40

30%ICL

40%ICL

50%ICL

0%ICL

Hornsfels

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0 10 20 30 40

15%FA

22.5%FA

30%FA

0%FA

Rhodacite

AS

11

41.6

0.1

AM

BT

exp

an

sio

n

CONCLUSIONS

1. The use of cement, with an optimum limestone mineral addition, and appropriate type and dosage of SCM can deliver concrete with the required constructability, strength and durability.

2. Both fine and coarse aggregates can be manufactured from selected rock source to provide suitable aggregates for a wide range of concrete applications including concrete pavement. SCM can be used to mitigate potential ASR.

3. Performance-based and semi-prescriptive specifications are useful tool to support the full use of a range of concreting materials.

These are materials and technologies that contribute to the sustainability of concrete in modern construction.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Dr Vute Sirivivatnanon would like to acknowledge the many sponsors of research conducted at CSIRO (1988-2006), CCAA (2006-2013) and more recently at the University of

Technology Sydney (UTS).

Current research is funded through the Australian Research Council (ARC) Research Hub for Nanoscience Based Construction Materials Manufacturing (NANOCOMM).

THANK YOU